ASHOK PLANTATIONS (P.) LTD. Vs. D. D. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is registered as R.P.No.549/2009 in connection with RSA No.550/1998 that came to be dismissed on 15th April 1998. The said second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Kodagu in R.A.No.15/1989 on 28-07-1993 which was directed against the judgment and decree dated 03-01-1981 passed in O.S.No.78/1978 by the Civil Judge, Madikeri.

(2.) The Plaintiff/first respondent in RSA No.550/1998 has filed a suit in O.S.No.78/1978 before the trial Judge for declaration of 1/4th share in the suit properties and seeking partition and separate possession which was dismissed on 03.01.1981. Regular appeal in RA No.15/1989 was preferred by the plaintiff against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal on 28-0701993 and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 03-01-1981 in O.S.NO.78/1978 and consequently, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Against which, RSA No.550/1998 was filed by the appellant which came to be dismissed along with the connected appeals (RSA No.777/1993 and RSA No.111/1998) on 15.04.1998. Against which, review petitioner (purchaser of properties) preferred Special Leave Petition in No.17922/1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Later a Civil petition was presented in Civil Petition No.876/1998 along with IA for condonation of delay that came to be rejected and that was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos.20032-33/2000 which came to be allowed and CA 2992-2993/2001 came to be registered and it came to be allowed and the petitioner was given an opportunity to agitate the matter in review petition as the CP was converted into R.P.549/2009 and it is coming up for disposal in the present proceedings.

(3.) It is necessary to mention that the review petitioner-Ashok Plantations (P) Ltd., by its Managing Director, is not the plaintiff or the defendants. On the other hand, petitioner is the purchaser of properties from defendant Nos.5 and 6 in the original suit who claims under defendant No.1. It is the petitioner, who claims to have purchased from defendants No.5 and 6. Thus the entitlement of the petitioner is nothing but that of defendants 5 and 6 who claim under defendant No.1.